Administrative

Previous Minutes

unanimously approved by 4 votes (3 abstentions due to absence at last meeting)

Circular Resolutions

none.

1. Mode of meeting

Board decides to open every board meeting with a quick round around the table for everyone to say what OSMF business they have done in the time since the last meeting.

2. Funding model

The OSMF funding model for 2014 and beyond is based on a combined model, aiming to cover fixed costs from corporate membership fees and non-earmarked donations, and project oriented costs and investments from earmarked donations. We continue to encourage individual membership however don't believe it is appropriate to rely on this as a major source of income. OSMF organised conferences (State Of The Map) should continue to be at least self-financing.

7 in favour.

3. Corporate membership

We will build a corporate membership program with clearly documented benefits, with the aim of generating 20k-30k of income short term. To that end the board asks the MT to prepare a written report or proposal addressing on the question, "Why would a company join the OpenStreetMap Foundation?" as well as any other proposals on how the goal can be met. Timeline: by the end of February 2014.

7 in favour.

4. Earmarked donations

We encourage the management team to define and develop projects that can be financed via earmarked donation drives and to schedule them appropriately so as not to conflict with each other.

7 in favour.

5. Transparency

The board resolves that transparency is a very important integral part of the operations of the OSMF and that the activities and discussions of the board, the Management Team, the Working Groups as well financial income and expenditure should be shared to the maximum possible internally and, as far as is reasonable, be published to the public record in as timely a manner as possible. This minimises speculation, ensures integrity and trust as well providing information that the general OSM community can act on in interesting, beneficial and unexpected ways.

7 in favour.

6. Attribution

Board affirms that OSM attribution on an OSM-derived map is required and not negotiable. We expect people to attribute our project properly and will complain if attribution is not given. The form taken by such attribution may be a subject of future discussion with users who find the current visual form too constraining, but in the absence of decisions to the contrary, we expect people to follow what is outlined in our Legal FAQ.